On Tue, Feb 03, 2015 at 10:54:33AM +0900, Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > On (02/02/15 16:06), Sergey Senozhatsky wrote: > > So, guys, how about doing it differently, in less lines of code, > > hopefully. Don't move reset_store()'s work to zram_reset_device(). > > Instead, move > > > > set_capacity(zram->disk, 0); > > revalidate_disk(zram->disk); > > > > out from zram_reset_device() to reset_store(). this two function are > > executed only when called from reset_store() anyway. this also will let > > us drop `bool reset capacity' param from zram_reset_device(). > > > > > > so we will do in reset_store() > > > > mutex_lock(bdev->bd_mutex); > > > > fsync_bdev(bdev); > > zram_reset_device(zram); > > set_capacity(zram->disk, 0); > > > > mutex_unlock(&bdev->bd_mutex); > > > > revalidate_disk(zram->disk); > > bdput(bdev); > > > > > > > > and change zram_reset_device(zram, false) call to simply > > zram_reset_device(zram) > > in __exit zram_exit(void). > > > > Hello, > > Minchan, Ganesh, I sent a patch last night, with the above solution. > looks ok to you?
Just I sent a feedback. > > Minchan, I think I'll send my small struct zram clean-up patch after > your init_lock patch. what's your opinion? Good for me. Thanks. -- Kind regards, Minchan Kim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
